RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03880

	 	COUNSEL:  

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told that six months after his discharge, he was eligible to have it upgraded to honorable.

The applicant states that he has been diagnosed with a mental illness and has been alcohol free for almost a year.  He takes his medication and is seen regularly by a psychiatrist, therapist, and social worker.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 June 1981 for a period of four years.

The commander notified applicant on 26 October 1982, that he was recommending his administrative discharge with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) for a pattern of disciplinary infractions.  Specifically, between 23 June 1981 and December 1981, he had numerous letters of counseling for being late for work, having unauthorized females in his dormitory room, falling asleep while on duty, destruction of government property, and disobeying lawful orders given by a Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC).  He also received two Article 15 punishments for failure to go and Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for failed dormitory inspetion and failure to go.  He acknowledged receipt and waived his right to a board hearing on the condition that he would receive no less than a general discharge.

The discharge authority approved the discharge on 26 November 1982 and directed that he be discharged, with his service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).

He was discharged on 29 November 1982, under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - A Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions), with his service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  He was issued an RE code of 2C.  He completed 1 year, 3 months, and 25 days of active service, with no time lost.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  AFPC/DPPRS states, in part, that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  In addition, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  There are no regulations or directives that allow an automatic upgrade of a discharge within six months or ever.  The only means of upgrading a discharge is through the AFBCMR.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and has provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 February 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However, as of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the available evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.  In this respect, the discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation in effect at the time of his separation.  The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate that his separation was inappropriate.  Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.  We have considered the applicant’s overall quality of service, the events that precipitated the discharge, and available evidence related to his post-service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2002-03880 in Executive Session on 8 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.